Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Again today we saw the Howard government’s scepticism when it comes to climate change. There is a reason that this Howard government has never been able to fully tackle the issue of climate change and why this government has been asleep for the last 11 years when it comes to climate change: from top to bottom it is peppered with climate change sceptics. Exhibit A when it comes to scepticism on climate change is the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Minchin. Senator Minchin is amongst those on the other side who simply do not accept that human activity has contributed to global warming. We know that this view is endemic on the Howard government’s side of parliament. We know that this is a view that many government members hold. In the papers today, and tabled in parliament yesterday, we saw an extraordinary report issued by four Howard government members of parliament in the other place: Dr Jensen, Miss Jackie Kelly, Mrs Vale and Mr Tollner who believe that humans have not contributed to climate change. In fact they describe those who believe in what is known as anthropagenic climate change or global warming as ‘fanatics’. What is interesting about the use of that term is that that is one of the ways in which Senator Minchin attempts to deflect criticism from his position by accusing those who accept the weight of scientific evidence that human activity has contributed to global warming. He tries to dismiss us as people who are simply being fanatical or fundamentalist about our approach to these things.

It is not surprising when you look at the Howard government’s expenditure when it comes to dealing with climate change over the last few years to see how pathetically this government has responded to this challenge. If there is one thing we have learned over the 11 long years of the Howard government, it is this: do not listen to what they say; look at what they do. We know that this is a government that loves a good headline. This is a government that is very good at getting the good headline and very poor at delivering the policy on the ground to back it up. We have seen billions of dollars announced in relation to environmental programs. How much has actually been spent and, more importantly, what outcomes are actually being delivered?

My colleague Senator McEwen asked Senator Minchin a question about the fact that between 2002 and 2005 the government spent some $300 million dollars on climate change related programs of which $200 million—that is, two-thirds—was spent on administration expenses rather than on program funding. That is the government’s response to this national challenge of climate change: two-thirds of the expenditure in the period 2002 to 2005 was spent on administration rather than on program funding.

But we already know this about the Howard government. They are very good at announcements and trying to get the headlines—and very poor on actually delivering outcomes. For example, we have seen the Prime Minister’s water announcement. Goodness me—$10 billion announced with a fanfare in January this year. And what do we have? We find out in Senate estimates that $10 billion of taxpayers’ money was committed on one page of costings that Senator Minchin’s department was asked to lightly cast their eyes over. That is the way this government approaches serious issues such as climate change and the water crisis. It is very good in terms of getting the headlines, and very poor in policy outcomes.

The reality is: this is a government full of climate change sceptics. Senator Minchin is clearly on the record saying he questions whether human activity has contributed to global warming. We have seen members in the other place coming out and saying that they think people who think this—that is, that humans are contributing to climate change—are fanatics. We have heard Senator Bernardi in this place on the public record expressing the same doubts. They are entitled to their opinion, but the problem is it is infecting this government’s response to what is a national challenge. The problem is this: when you have people in your own government who do not believe it is a crisis, you do not respond properly. That is one of the reasons that this government has been asleep for 11 years when it comes to climate change, and the only reason it is now high on their political agenda is that their pollsters are telling them to make it so. That is the only reason you are responding on the issue of climate change. (Time expired)

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the years I have noticed that the ALP likes to criticise the government for its failure to respond to environmental issues such as greenhouse gases and climate change. Yet the cold, hard fact is that one of the very first actions of the Howard government was to set up the world’s first greenhouse office way back in 1996. So you cannot say this government has not been concerned about climate change over the years; in fact, way ahead of any other government in the world this government was aware of greenhouse issues and concerned about climate change.

The Australian government’s climate change policy framework has embraced four key elements. The first of these is reducing domestic emissions at least economic cost. For the record, the government has committed to the introduction of a domestic emissions trading scheme, with the goal of commencing in 2011, and work on the scheme has already begun. So this government, far from not being concerned about domestic emissions, is right at the present time planning for a domestic emissions trading scheme.

We have developed key low-emissions technologies which are designed to improve energy efficiency and support households and communities in reducing emissions. It was recently announced that new complementary measures targeting schools, households and the nuclear industry would bring the government’s total investment in addressing climate change to no less than $3.4 billion since 1996—a very substantial amount of money and a very significant proportion of the budget of Australia. Again, the ALP simply cannot with any validity claim that this government has not addressed climate change issues in a very serious, significant and committed way.

We have also supported world-class climate change science and sought to develop techniques in science to adapt to the impacts of unavoidable climate change. To this end, the government has established the Australian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation with funding of $126 million—again, a significant amount of money. There is no doubt that climate change is occurring in the south-west of Western Australia, where I come from. There is no doubt that the rainfall in the south-west has dropped by something like 30 per cent over the last 25 years—that is real and significant evidence of climate change. We hear that the polar icecaps are melting and that there was less snow in the Alps in Germany and Switzerland last winter. There is evidence of climate change constantly to be seen around the world.

Climate change is without doubt a reality. There is still some doubt or argument about the causes. The ALP would have us believe that it is all due to human action and greenhouse gases. Other people who look into the records find that the world has gone through cyclical periods of climate change over a very long time and that issues like sunspots and variations in the orbit of the earth have to be considered. But, nevertheless, climate change whatever its cause is a reality, and the Howard government has been concerned about it right from the time it first came to office.

Far from being vulnerable to criticism by the ALP and mindless, endless criticism by the Greens on the issue of climate change, one of the strongest platforms in the record of the Howard government has been our record on the environment and in addressing environmental issues, not just in terms of concern about climate change as such but also in developing policies for renewable energy with our MRETs program and other programs, such as solar programs, to ensure that we use renewable energy sources to the maximum. This is one of the great achievements of the Howard government. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For a moment I thought we were finally going to get one admission from a government senator that climate change is real, that it is a real and present threat to our ongoing viability as a community, as a planet. Senator Eggleston started to say that he accepts there is real evidence of climate change, that there is constant evidence around the world of climate change, but, of course, the sceptic, like the rest of the government members, started to come out. He said, even though the evidence is real, present, constant and world wide, there is doubt about the causes. There is doubt whether human activity is having an impact on climate change—it could be just cyclical change; it could be the orbit of the earth.

For Senator Eggleston and the rest of the government members, this debate has been had. It is done and dusted. The scientific community has been arguing about this for the last 20 years and it has clearly resolved that human activity is affecting the climate on this planet and, unless we intervene in the way we do business, in the way we conduct our affairs, climate change is going to get worse, to the extent where it will finally be irreversible. But no-one suggests it is not irreversible now, and we have an obligation as a society to start taking the action that is necessary to address it. But we will never take the action that is necessary when over there the people with the purse strings, the people on the government side, are sceptical about the impact of human activity on climate change.

Crosby Textor, the pollsters of the Liberal Party, must be turning over and agonising about this, because they must be providing evidence to the government that even the public of Australia are light-years ahead of where this government wants to be. You really need to start taking it seriously. We hear mealy-mouthed promises about what you are going to do and that the government are taking these things seriously—but of course they are not. We have only to look at some of the quotes from some senior ministers in this government and some backbenchers. Let me start with Senator Abetz. He wants to write off climate change by saying:

There is no doubt that weeds pose ... a challenge much clearer, more present and possibly more serious than the unclear challenge which climate change may or may not pose to our biodiversity in 100 years time.

He said that in a media release on 25 December 2006. Weeds are an issue. It is something we ought to be addressing as a community. But to suggest that they present more of a threat than the unclear and challengeable impact of climate change is really just a joke. Again, it is the image the government want to present to the Australian public—that they are really trying to do something and that they believe that there has to be some intervention in climate change. Let us look at what Senator Cory Bernardi from South Australia said this year:

I have come to believe that we are seeing a distortion of the whole area of science that is being manipulated to present a certain point of view to the global public. That is, the actions of man are the cause of climate change. I have examined both sides of this debate and when the alarmist statements are discounted the scientific evidence that remains does not support the scenario that is being presented to us. The facts do not fit the theory.

All I can say to poor old Senator Bernardi is that the results are in for climate change. That debate has been had, so move on and accept the overwhelming body of evidence that suggests absolutely that human intervention is a cause of climate change. This bury-your-head-in-the-sand attitude will get us nowhere. It will lead to what this government suggests tackling climate change will lead to—that is, a lack of jobs. If we do not act, if we do not engage in the technologies, if we do not engage in rebuilding our industries and doing what is necessary to tackle climate change, it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy and we will lose jobs. But by tackling these issues now—and we have the technology if only we had the will—we can grow these industries, we can grow them sustainably and we can grow them with jobs. The Prime Minister acknowledges that as well. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The focus groups have sure been working hard for the Labor Party in the last six months, and they eventually alerted Mr Rudd to the fact that climate change is an issue. The Labor Party did not seem to realise that fact for the 13 years that they were in government. We came to government in 1996, and the first thing we did—a world first, certainly a first for any Australian government—was to establish the Australian Greenhouse Office within the department of the environment. Nothing had been done by the Labor Party. Now they are putting this holier-than-thou view on climate change because their focus groups have been working for Mr Rudd since he has become the leader. They told Mr Rudd that he should say something about climate change. So now the Labor Party are on board, trying to play catch-up politics on what the Howard government have been doing for the 10 years of their government. The Greenhouse Office was a world first, and it demonstrated that, not 10 months ago when Mr Rudd was elected leader of the Labor Party but 10 years ago when this government was elected, we had a serious view on climate change and actually did something about it then. Since that time, the government has committed over $3½ billion to initiatives that directly address climate change and more than over one-quarter of a billion dollars on indirect matters.

I would ask the Labor Party what they spent on this in their 13 years of office. It would not be anywhere near the $3.4 billion that the Howard government has spent. What is the Labor Party’s solution to climate change? They think we should sign a bit of paper—the Kyoto protocol—and then everything will be okay. Sorry; that is not the real world. What you need to do is to look after the gas emissions in your own country, which we are doing with over $3½ billion of initiatives, and you have to try to get the big emitters of the world to do something about their emissions as well. I would again point out that Australia is very concerned about this and has been for 10 years. But Australia exudes less than 1½ per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. So even if we were to turn off every electric light and shut down every factory and power station in Australia tomorrow it would not make one iota of difference to greenhouse gas emissions in the world. That is why it is so essential that we do as the Howard government has been doing; that is, to try to get the big emitters—China, India and the United States—to the table to get a worldwide, global, approach to greenhouse gas emissions that will really make a difference.

Whilst the Labor Party keep talking about the Kyoto protocol, which was signed by, I think, 150-odd countries, only a little over 30 of those countries have ever actually done anything about greenhouse gas emissions and very few of them have reached their targets. Senator Abetz today, in what I must say was one of the best answers at question time I have heard for a very long time, pointed out that places like New Zealand are not meeting their targets whereas Australia is. There are many reasons for that, but certainly the answer that Senator Abetz gave on forestry was one which has highlighted a very real benefit that forests have on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and therefore the world.

It always amazes me that the Greens, who continue to rail about government action in the forests, are supporting forest industries in Indonesia, the Solomons and other places around the world which are nowhere near as sustainable as Australia’s very finely managed, very productive but very environmentally friendly forests. The government has looked seriously at greenhouse and climate change issues, as can be seen with its Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund of over $100 million, its Renewable Energy Development Initiative and its Solar Cities initiative of $75 million. All these are Australian government—Howard government—initiatives that the Labor Party has never thought of. (Time expired)

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn’t it interesting that, whenever we have a debate about measures to address the real challenge of climate change in this place, those opposite choose to trumpet as one of their very few initiatives the establishment of the Australian Greenhouse Office. What they neglect to say each and every time they raise this is that the Greenhouse Office no longer exists as an independent entity. It must have been another Crosby Textor poll-driven initiative. They must have been told way back then that they had to do something to address this issue. With great fanfare, Senator Minchin’s predecessor as leader of the government in this place announced the establishment of the Greenhouse Office, but very quietly, very trickily and very sneakily later on decided just to shut it down and subsume it back into the department. Where is any one of those opposite actually in here, being honest and accountable? The announcement of that office was a political stunt. If it was your strategy, if it was doing real work, why doesn’t it still exist?

It is a bit like all the other initiatives that you have announced—and Senator McEwen went right to the heart of that. In this place there is much fanfare by those opposite about the amounts of money that are put into this and that program in trying to address the political problem that the government has, which is that the community wants something done to address this very real challenge—this challenge that the voting public accepts but that those opposite do not. So what does the government do? It announces, with much fanfare, different funding programs. What the government does not do is then be honest and accountable and admit to us how much of that money is being spent on administration.

We learned from Senator McEwen today in question time that, for every dollar this government claims to spend on politically expedient policies in attempting to address some of the challenges of climate change, it spends $2 in administration. That is not a serious effort at addressing one of the most significant challenges that this planet faces—a challenge that most members of the community have accepted for a long time and who, in fact, are trying to do their bit in their homes and their workplaces and through their community organisations to address because the government will not. Two dollars spent on administration for every one dollar spent out in the community is an absolute disgrace.

I am glad Senator Macdonald mentioned the Solar Cities program, because that is a real demonstration of this government’s lack of commitment. In my home town of Perth, the City of Belmont—not renowned for being an ultra-trendy left-wing inner city council but renowned for being a responsible metropolitan suburban council—has applied time and time again to this government for funding under that program and time and time again it has been rejected by this government. In fact, these days the only federal government member from Western Australia we can find who wants to talk at all about alternative energy sources is the member for Tangney. He does not believe that there is any such thing as human induced or human caused climate change, but he does believe in nuclear power. He sees that as the main plank of policy to address our future energy needs. According to him, when he is forced to discuss climate change, it can be addressed very well by nuclear power and by littering this country with nuclear power stations. He does not come out and support good, accountable local government organisations, like the City of Belmont, when they apply for funding to try to diversify our energy sources and address this challenge at a very local grassroots level. He does not actually support them at all, nor does this government, by giving them the funding they are seeking. Instead, Dr Jensen and others say that we should have nuclear power plants throughout the state—something that the people of Western Australia refuse to believe in.

Senator Abetz in question time today claimed that this government is addressing these issues with rigour and robustness. It would seem that the only rigour and robustness that the government is exercising, as I say, is to spend two dollars for every one dollar—two dollars in administration. (Time expired)

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot of our discussion this afternoon has reflected questions about climate change which were asked during question time today—and that is appropriate. It is the most pressing, overarching environmental and, indeed, economic and social issue that the country and the planet faces. However, it is important also that, alongside or as part of having that debate about the appropriateness, adequacy and nature of our overall response to climate change, we look at concrete examples and specific ways of addressing the issue of climate change to mitigate and avoid it and look at issues that can demonstrate the linkage of climate change to other environmental and social issues.

The question that I asked today of Senator Abetz, in his capacity representing the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, pointed to one example—the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area in the far north of Queensland, my home state. The Wet Tropics World Heritage Area is relatively well known, particularly for the Daintree rainforest. It is known for its magnificent natural beauty and it has the appropriate slogan ‘Where the rainforest meets the reef’, because it adjoins the equally beautiful and equally environmentally significant Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Aspects of quite wide environmental significance are not often properly recognised and understood. The Wet Tropics World Heritage Area—and it is not just the Daintree, I might emphasise; it goes further to the north of the Daintree up close to Cooktown and right down south past Cairns, almost to Townsville—is incredibly diverse and incredibly important in an ecological sense, particularly because of its immense biodiversity.

For all the focus we have in this chamber and elsewhere on some other areas and some other environmental issues that involve landscapes that are visually appealing, the simple fact is that in terms of biodiversity the wet tropics region in Far North Queensland—like other, larger, parts of Far North Queensland such as the Cape—has an incredible concentration of biodiversity and is recognised globally as a biodiversity hot spot.

This is important not just because of the significance for the future maintenance of ecological diversity but also as a buffer against the impacts of climate change. This is a relatively small area, which is significantly threatened because of human activity, particularly residential and commercial development, agricultural activities and tourism pressures. Small areas with immense biodiversity that also have climate change coming over the top are under significant threat. They need proper support for management.

The federal government do not provide significant amounts of money for the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. I believe that they need to give extra resources to it, because, from an ecological point of view, we have an indescribably significant World Heritage area. The question I raised today goes not just to the pure biodiversity issue of the wet tropics area but also to the even less well-recognised cultural diversity of the area.

I am pleased that the federal government is finally moving towards giving consideration to renominating the wet tropics area for its Aboriginal cultural values, but that process really needs to be undertaken as quickly as possible. And, whilst Senator Abetz did outline some resourcing the federal government is providing to the Aboriginal traditional owners of that area, it is not sufficient. We often do not comprehend the integral link between the biodiversity, the ecological diversity, of a region like the wet tropics and its cultural diversity. They are intertwined, because it was the cultural and management practices of Aboriginal traditional owners going back millennia that actually maintained, protected and preserved that biodiversity that we now recognise as so significant.

If we do not provide assistance to the traditional owners with their traditional management knowledge for this region then we are putting at risk not just the cultural values that are finally slowly being recognised as of World Heritage significance but also the ecological values, the biodiversity values, that they are part and parcel with. That is not only a tragedy in terms of loss of knowledge and loss of ecological values with the Indigenous peoples; it is also reducing and putting at risk a major buffer against the serious threat that climate change presents.

Question agreed to.